The province of Nangarhar, in eastern Afghanistan, is bearing the brunt of ongoing U.S. airstrikes against the Taliban and fighters who have declared allegiance to the Islamic State. Half of July’s U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan – at least 358 strikes – took place in eastern Nangarhar, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. And according to United Nations data released last month, U.S. strikes in Nangarhar are more likely to result in civilian casualties than strikes anywhere else the country. On July 23, one of these strikes reportedly killed at least eight civilians, including children, who were attending a funeral, allegations of which the U.S. military is investigating.

Just last week, Afghan officials said that a U.S. attack in Nangarhar killed 16 civilians, including women and children. A spokesman for the U.S. military denied those claims, saying that the strike was “against militants [who] were observed loading weapons into a vehicle.”

But in the remote and dangerous areas where most of these strikes take place, it is often impossible to know the true identities of the victims, and many strikes go unreported. And among local villagers, distrust of both the United States and President Ashraf Ghani’s U.S.-backed government runs high.

In interviews with The Intercept this past May, villagers in Khogyani, a Taliban-controlled district of Nangarhar, described living with the threat of U.S. Special Operations ground raids and regular drone strikes. Few foreigners visit Khogyani, and even Afghans from the provincial capital, Jalalabad, prefer to avoid its villages, where insurgents rule the ground and U.S. warplanes haunt the skies.

“A few days ago, another drone strike took place. The victims were innocent farmers and their women and children,” said Shafiqullah, a driver from Basakhel.

Shafiqullah also described how locals fear the U.S. drones that appear when the sky is clear. “Many people, like myself, remove our SIM cards regularly to avoid being located,” he said. The United States has been known to identify and track targets based on the unique codes of their SIM cards. (The Intercept was unable to identify which strike Shafiqullah was referring to, although there were several strikes reported in Nangarhar at the end of April and in early May where the exact location was unclear. The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which keeps a comprehensive list of public reporting on strikes in Afghanistan, relies largely on local press reports and statements from U.S. and Afghan military officials, which do not always specify where the strike occurred. U.S. Central Command did not respond to a request for comment on the allegations of civilian casualties in this article.)

When the Trump administration dropped the so-called “mother of all bombs” on an alleged ISIS hideout in Nangarhar in April, the Afghan government reported that more than 90 ISIS militants had been killed. The Pentagon refused to provide a number, and the U.S. and Afghan military blocked access to the strike zone, preventing outside observers and journalists from entering.

For many locals in Khogyani, which lies about an hour away from Achin, the use of the bomb was just another example of what they perceive as U.S. aggression, whether directed at Taliban insurgents or ISIS fighters.

“As usual, they had killed civilians and wanted to hide their crimes,” said Mustafa, a student from the village of Basakhel. “The U.S. is abusing our country as a playground for their weapons.”

Since the emergence of ISIS-allied militants in Afghanistan in 2015, the United States, working with Afghan forces, has reportedly killed a high number of militants through a series of airstrikes, conducted by both conventional aircraft and drones. In most cases, the identities of the alleged insurgents have not been verified, and most strikes are not investigated, opening up the possibility that many more civilians have been killed.

“The United States has been carrying out increasing numbers of air and drone strikes as this year has gone on, and a lot of them have been in Nangarhar. The full toll of these strikes in lives is not known because independent investigation is not possible,” said Jack Serle, who has been tracking drone strikes in Afghanistan since 2014 for the BIJ.

Since neither the U.S. nor the Afghan army often has access to the areas they are bombing, such as Khogyani, they rely on signals intelligence from electronic communications, and imagery taken from above. “This suggests that [the] civilian death toll will be higher than what little data we have shows, and higher than the U.S. and Afghan military realize,” said Serle.

Khogyani locals have noticed that airstrikes have increased since Donald Trump became president. “We faced war and destruction also during Obama’s era but since Trump took over the presidency, the strikes increased hugely,” said Esmatullah Bashari, a Taliban-allied commander in the district. Both local civilians and members of the Taliban maintain that most of the victims have been noncombatants.

With bravado typical of local commanders, Bashari – who once fought against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and is also known as a famous poet in the region — said he and his fighters were the only ones to have fought the ISIS militants effectively. “Two years ago, they also controlled Khogyani. We recaptured the district and lost 300 men,” he said.

Bashari also argued that the White House’s drone policy in the region has become a catalyst for extremism and insurgency. “After every strike, people, sometimes the whole clan, join our fight,” said Bashari, with characteristic exaggeration. “Especially when women and children get killed, the anger is enormous, they don’t have any other choice than to fight.

“The Americans don’t differentiate between civilians and insurgents. Everyone here is considered a terrorist,” Bashari said. He claimed that he had twice been targeted by drone strikes in the past two years, including one that hit a jirga, or local tribal assembly, which he was attending. At least five people — civilians, according to Bashari — were killed, while he and other Taliban fighters survived. But while Bashari escaped death at the hands of the United States, he was killed on July 14 by an unknown gunman in a Khogyani market.

Taliban fighters in Khogyani described how the deaths of family members had caused them to take up arms. As with the case with Bashari, they did not say exactly where and when the drone strikes occurred, so their accounts could not be corroborated. It is also the case, as Serle noted, that many strikes go unreported given the remoteness of the region.

Jahan Baaz, a tall, sturdy man, said that two of his brothers were killed in drone strikes a year ago, and that he believes it is his duty to fight the Americans and their allies. Another fighter, barely 20 years old, claimed that his father had also been killed by an American drone, which led him to join the insurgents.

Such a reaction can be expected, said Patricia Gossman, a senior researcher on Afghanistan with Human Rights Watch. “Each civilian death for which U.S. or NATO forces are perceived to be responsible increases hostility toward them, and may increase support for anti-government forces,” she said.

Top photo: Smoke rises after a U.S. airstrike on positions during an ongoing an operation against Islamic State (IS) militants in Kot district of Nangarhar province on Feb. 16, 2017.

We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our nonprofit newsroom strong and independent. Join Us

Great to see an article of Emran in the Intercept. I read his work in German for some time and I think, he is a German/Afghani version of Jeremy Scahill. Great to hear he will write a new book.

I also recommand the documentary “National Bird” of Sonia Kannemann. I think, she got also inspired by Jeremy.

However there are only very few people in Germany, who protest the US terrorist program of drone bombing, though it is controlled via US air base Ramstein in Germany. That is against the German constitution, which does not allow Germans to start or take part in an aggressive war. Also it makes Germany a combattant according to international law.

No war crime or atrocity too great not to be in the US playbook – 5 million North Koreans bombed to dust, 5 million Vietnamese/Southeast Asians slaughtered, 5 million Muslims from a variety of countries obliterated, untold millions of Africans fed to the arms industry. Are we ‘advanced’ nations awesome, or what?

Tens of thousands of jobs and Billions of dollars depend upon the longest war the USA has been involved with going on and on…

Jobs in the US military, intelligence contractors in both the public/private sector, the weapons manufacturers, the long list of suppliers, the think tanks and foundations, the media conglomerates including the talking heads and staff–ALL of them depend upon these pseudo-wars going on and on…

…the authors found that most ended for one of two reasons: They were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies (40 percent), or they reached a peaceful political accommodation with their government (43 percent). Most terrorist groups that ended because of politics sought narrow policy goals. The narrower the goals, the more likely the group was to achieve them through political accommodation — and thus the more likely the government and terrorists were to reach a negotiated settlement.

In 10 percent of cases, terrorist groups ended because they achieved victory. Military force led to the end of terrorist groups in 7 percent of cases.

Hat Tip: Michael Hastings, who wrote about this study in Chapter 30 of his book THE OPERATORS (2012). Hastings also wrote about “Afghan Math” in Chapter 23:

If you kill two out of ten insurgents, you don’t end up with eight insurgents. You might end up multiplying the number of fighters aligned against you. [Gen. Stanley] McChrystal called it “insurgent math.”

If you kill two, he said, “more likely you’re going to have something like twenty. Those two that were killed, their relatives don’t understand that they’re doing bad things. Okay (they think) a foreigner killed my brother; I got to fight them.”

The part that sticks out to me is the lone gunman in the market. I’ve been trying to read about daesh’s strategy in Afghanistan. In their heyday, I read a Shia Hazara, redundant, maybe; was their in country commander. At that time, they were only fighting for smuggling routes. Back to the lone gunman in the market.

A ‘playground for weapons’ insinuates the United States is behaving irresponsibly. It would be better to describe Afghanistan as a ‘testing ground for weapons’. War is a serious business that generates large amounts of cash, not a game.

absolutely.
Afganistan is the proving ground.
The Saudis will get to see tha action in the videos they take.
Then the israeli crime syndicate will obtain the weapons from the corrupt persons in afgan who received the weapons from the Americans.
The israelis will make a huge markeup to the Saudis who have no authority to purchase new weapons beyond their prescribed limit.
The meetings will take place at pre-arranged concerts where famous people like to congregate in their big ticket party suites.
Learning the ropes of these criminal operations will be attended by trusted family members of so-called leaders and front person with large business and expensive taste.
Also skimming off the top for tax free with the winks and nods from the criminal rogues of the intel agencies who do better things than murder Seth Rich.
Monies will be transacted thru co-operating banks specializing in certain clientelle.
Covering for them will be the elected whores who signed pledges to the criminal operations.
The nice thing about having criminals run the governments and military is that they are entirely predictable.

Based on their past lies, we can conclude that when the US military claims to have killed militants, the majority were in fact civilians. This sprawling drone war has given us a lot of statistical data on their consistent underreporting of death tolls and overreporting of “militants”. Those statistics could be used to derive adjusted figures, which would almost certainly prove more realistic than the official account.
I’d prefer to read an “estimated” figure based on official statements statistically adjusted to account for their lying.

If some ruthless foreign power occupied my homeland going on 2 decades, and I saw that power frequently using it as a testing/proving ground for its weapons and military tactics – without regard for consequences to innocent bystanders (or MSF hospitals), I’d probably become a guerilla fighter against that power, too.

Didn’t “Nazis” supposedly teach the world to never quit fighting when confronted with an occupying foreign fascist power – killing innocent civilians and exploiting/stealing resources not their own?

Having not yet faced its own extremely racist and imperialist past enables that manifest destiny hypocrisy so many Americans cling to like a crutch, because that’s somehow being a “chosen people” instead; the shining city on the hill and not an abusive empire. Those clearly lensing history, however, will note this up-and-running example of an apartheid/slave/ethnic cleansing, rights-for-me-but-not-for-thee, society – existed long before either Zionism or Nazi Germany.

I’ve wondered how much the increased rates of PTSD in veterans of these latest wars (Afghanistan, Iraq) are not about trauma about what has been experienced but about guilt and self-loathing about what one has participated in.

I was talking to some British marines-turned-mercs the other day and I asked them why we were still in Afghanistan 6+ years after OBL was found in Pakistan and 16+ years after we shouldn’t have gone in in the first place and they said – h-hm – because we were freeing dozens of young boys from a life of child prostitution. That was all they could muster. It seems we are bombing an ancient culture, their country and infrastructure into the Stone Age to the tune of millions of damaged or destroyed lives, the unchecked flow of heroin cheap, and billions of wasted dollars over a bit of under-aged fellatio.

I asked them that, whilst they may feel morally superior on their high horses, had they ever been to King’s Cross before? Our wondrous Soldier-Heroes looked somewhat abashed, which couldve meant they either had or hadn’t, I wasn’t sure.

So we are Killing in the Name Of, erm, because Taliban Child Slave Prostitution Muzzie Wierdo Foreign Aliens I guess. Do they even still exist now? Who would even know…

How sick is that? And even worse, how sick is the silence of the chattery classes who think they are so in touch with the righteousness of the human spirit?

[[[ 16+ years after we shouldn’t have gone in in the first place and they said – h-hm – because we were freeing dozens of young boys from a life of child prostitution. That was all they could muster. ]]]

The “saving people from the Taliban” pretext is complete bullshit. The U.S. created the precursor to the Taliban in order to fight a proxy war with the Soviet Union. So if you want to fight crap like that, attack the U.S., not Afghanistan! Best way to attack the U.S.? From within by getting rid of your car and Stop Shopping!

[[[ The U.S. created the precursor to the Taliban in order to fight a proxy war with the Soviet Union. ]]]

Wrong. Rockfeller Klan (via former Rockefeller Brothers Trust employee by the name of Henry Kissinger) created the problems in Afghan in order to mine 3 trillion dollars worth of copper (and to build railroads to China — where JDR made Std Oil, “Standard Oil”).

Your irrelevant and ridiculous comment is not worthy of response, but since you claim that I’m wrong, please explain how the events in the 1970s that you outlined caused the creation violent religious fanatics.

“I asked them why we were still in Afghanistan 6+ years after OBL was found in Pakistan and 16+ years after we shouldn’t have gone in in the first place”

This is such an easy question. I doubt you even asked it to the Marines. They have so many good answers they could give you:

1) There are roughly 500 British troops in Afghanistan. 500 troops helping to fight one of the most violent terrorist organizations through training and intelligence does not in anyway weaken British defenses
2) you can pretend you are not aware of what has been done in Afghanistan since 2001, but the facts are here:
Infant mortality rate in 2001 was 93 per 1000. In 2015, it was 66 per 1000
Tuberculosis treatment coverage was 34% in 2002. In 2015, it was 58%
Literacy rates in 2001 was 12% ( in a population of more than 30 mln). In 2015, it was 38%
Press freedom index was 134 in 2002. In 2017 it is 120 ( Venezuela is 137, Mexico is 147, Russia is 148, Turkey is 155, Iran is 165, Cuba is 174)
You really do not know what basic freedoms women had in 2001? In 2016, 27% of parliament seats are secured by elected Afghan women.

Again, the answer to your question is extremely simple. The 500 British troops are in Afghanistan to help the Afghans maintain and expand the level security they have achieved after the fall of the Taliban, to maintain and expand the success they have achieved in healthcare, education, basic freedoms, basic human rights. Those 500 troops will not change Afghanistan into Switzerland, but the U.K. has nothing to lose if 500 British troops( Great Britain has 65 mln people) can help the Afghan government against the Taliban that made it clear it wants to return Afghanistan to the Stone Age.

A little history: in the 1960’s Afghanistan was a far better place to live than it is now, as the country was at peace and ruled by a Soviet-friendly secular government that built up the country’s infrastructure. However, in the late 1970’s, the Carter administration, urged on by national security advisor Zbigniew Brezinski, began to finance and supply jihadist fighters from outside Afghanistan, for the purpose of “giving the Soviet’s their own Vietnam”. The resulting civil war drew the Soviet Union in, and the continuing supply of advanced weapons to the jihadists by the CIA kept the war going until the Soviet Union had to give up. Much of Afghanistan was destroyed in the fighting.

After the U.S.S.R. withdrew their forces, the victorious jihadists began to fight with each other. The U.S. did nothing, as we apparently did not care what happened to the Afghan people. The situation became so bad that the islamist Taliban began to gain popular support, because they stopped the fighting in those areas they controlled. Nevertheless, the country was still quite a mess by 2001–the Taliban had few resources and were not efficient rulers. Your statistics from 2001 certainly reflect that reality.

After the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban offered to turn over Osama Bin Laden to a neutral third party for trial, if the U.S. provided proof that he was behind the attacks. The U.S. refused to do so and shortly after invaded Afghanistan. After the Taliban was routed, we turned the country over to a very corrupt government, made up of drug smugglers and the like, which had no real popular support. This opened the door for the Taliban to come back. One thing should be clear–the Taliban is an indigenous organization. They are made up of Afghanis who oppose the U.S. occupation. In fighting them, we are fighting an organization that does have wide popular support in Afganistan. The alternative we offer is a weak, corrupt government. No wonder the war goes on and on–support for such a government can only be bought, it has no real roots in the population.

The “improved” statistics are quite dismal–38 percent literacy? When you think of the massive amount of resources we have poured into Afghanistan, it should by now be a modern country with literacy close to 100 percent. But the resources have either gone to military action or have been swallowed up by pervasive corruption. It is time we negotiated an end to the war with the Taliban and sent our troops home.

“After the 9/11 attacks, the Taliban offered to turn over Osama Bin Laden to a neutral third party for trial, if the U.S. provided proof that he was behind the attacks.”

1) UN Resolution 1267 in 1999 demanded the Taliban turn over OBL to a third party for trial after all evidence of his terrorist activities were provided to the world. They refused. That was 2 years before 9/11. What makes you think they were serious about handing OBL? And why would you trust them as they had openly supported OBL activities and ideology?

2) Do you make a difference between the terrorists and those who willingly give them a place to train, and plan terrorist attacks? Why would you give your evidence to those who, as a matter of policy, harbor the terrorists?

“In fighting them, we are fighting an organization that does have wide popular support in Afganistan.”

Show surveys, studies that prove that the Taliban “does have wide popular support in Afghanistan”.

“The “improved” statistics are quite dismal–38 percent literacy? When you think of the massive amount of resources we have poured into Afghanistan, it should by now be a modern country with literacy close to 100 percent.”

1) Get a class in macro economics 101 so you can learn how long it usually takes a country similar to Afghanistan to advance.
2) From 12% literacy rate to 38% in a decade in a country that has been (and is in many respects) a war zone is a massive success by all measures. However, it is expected that you will reject all positive news from Afghanistan because they go against your anti Western views.

“It is time we negotiated an end to the war with the Taliban and sent our troops home.”

UN/US/EU/Afghan government/Russia offered the Taliban to lay down their weapons and participate in elections. You claim they have” wide popular support”. So, how come they consistently refuse to do so? Maybe you should believe them when they say they do not want democracy and they want others to abide by what they want.

You make good points about the invasion, occupation and killing of afgans gone wild for the betterment of afganistan.
This same theory can be applied elsewhere as well.

The extermination of Palestinians and theft of their property is a true blessing for them because their lives are so miserable that they are better off dead – and as long as they are dead, they cannot care for the house….
So why not take the land and homes and put them to better use?

RESOLUTION 3379 was thankfully retracted because it identified israeli zionists as racists but in reality, the zionists are merely the cleanup crew for a grander mission by operatives around the world far more capable than the jackel. These operatives did a hell of a job blowing up the King David Hotel to destroy some evidence of their presumeably criminal organization. They are not quitters however… These operatives had a blast in Egypt in the early 50’s creating false flags in an attempt to overthrow the Egyptian govt why?
(refrain)To STEAL THE SINAI.
That didnt work so these operatives then tried to sink the USS LIBERTY under the false flag of “egypt did it” so they could get the US to drop an atomic bomb on Cairo. Why?
(refraiin) To STEAL THE SINAI.
That didnt work so what did these operatives do next? Probably planned and orchestrated the bombing of the World Trade center. Why? To start a Christian – Moslem war so they could what?
(refrain) STEAL THE SINAI.
That didnt work so what did the operatives do next? They hatched a scheme to invade Iraq and destroy the country under the fony as baloney pretext of WMD as prescribed by the governing plan, YINON PLAN. Why?
(refrain)To STEAL THE SINAI.
That has not worked yet so what did these operatives do next? They tried to get a whore named Hellary Clinton protected and elected to the presidency. Why?
(refrain) To STEAL THE SINAI.
Bernie Sanders was an easy victory over the Donald but Bernie would not go along with their scheme. As they were stuck with CROOKED HILLARY they decided to make a go of it AT ANY PRICE. But then the tables were turned when SETH RICH came across some stuff which was patently unAmerican so what did these operatives do? THEY GOT SETH RICH MURDERED. Why?
(refrain) To STEAL THE SINAI.
Why pay for the Sinai when you can steal it using someone else’s money and lives?
Now you would think that the fools providing the money and lives for all this would catch on. But they cannot see past their own nose. That being the case, may as well LEAD THEM BY THE NOSE, eh?SMART!

“You make good points about the invasion, occupation and killing of afgans gone wild for the betterment of afganistan.”

Strange statement considering the wild killing of Afghans was going on under the Taliban who committed genocide and caused millions of refugees before the invasion. Moreover, the Taliban is still responsible for the continuous wild killing. I am curious. Are you disappointed the invasion has stopped the Taliban ability to commit more genocides?

“The extermination of Palestinians…..”

You should wait for the next anti Israel article. This one is about Afghanistan.

August 27, 1929 – Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES – Print Headline: “HORRORS OF RIOTING IN PALESTINE TOLD; Stories of Eyewitnesses Give Details of 4 Days of Strife in Holy Land. ARABS RAID MERCILESSLY Families Are Cut Down at Meals– Knives, Pistols, Rifles Flash From Dark Corners. Variety of Weapons Used. Slain During Sabbath Meal.”

Of course this about playing with their weapons. The whole US military is about weapon procurement and the profits derived from taxpayers, not about defending the nation.

Why not buy weapons from the defense industry without providing the enormous profits? These people supposed to be patriots. As patriots they should be willing to provide weapon systems without lining their pockets.

Or again, maybe they are not patriots, and just profiteers sucking on the taxpayer’s teat, especially the American taxpayer caught in the increasing inequality causing his or her wages to continually spiral down.

Maybe you care about civilians, but he does not. More than 60% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan are cause by the Taliban, ISIS and other insurgents. As of February 2017, international forces were responsible for 2% of civilian casualties. The author carefully omitted those data that prove unequivocally that foreign forces have reduced civilian casualties from their firepower while the Taliban is doing the opposite. He reported the Taliban’s point of view without mentioning they are the ones killing more civilians.

This is just an anti American article veiled by an insincere concern for civilians.

You do understand that the claim that “foreign forces” have “reduced civilian casualties from their firepower” means that they – we – are still killing people for no reason, right? Also, the article states that casualties have risen sharply this year – after February, obviously.

“means that they – we – are still killing people for no reason, right?”
No, that is not what it means. That is what you want to say because you are anti Western, therefore you must state anything negative about the West regardless of the facts.

“Also, the article states that casualties have risen sharply this year – after February, obviously.”

Check the United Nations link I provided, study their reports and then tell us why civilian casualties have risen sharply. Is it because of foreign forces or because of the Taliban?

Yes. The British inflicted this hell on the Afghanistan and Pakistan with the Durand Line in the late 1800s — it was not theirs to do that. They completely land
Kicked Afghanistan into a hell– everyone knows the importance of having access to waterways and ocean ways for not just the survival but the well being of a nation! Perhaps a north-south delineation would have been wise? Yea, that is why some are anti-western. Youall go back home. And 2% casualties is not justifiable in any way. Yes, the Taliban, isis and whatever the nextgens call themselves, they are a western fabrication back to the 1800s.

IN order for civilian casualties to be reported by UNAMA they have to be verified, reverified and double-counter-verified or else they are not mentioned. Besides, they have no access to areas that are controlled by the insurgents, which is where most of the strikes occur.

The result is that these reports are utterly worthless: they count lots of deaths in government/coalition-controlled areas which are caused mostly by the insurgents but few in rebel areas which is where most of the air strikes take place.